Strategy change for Afghanistan?

[Roger Perry]

Seriously, would you freakin' get off of it already? Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion (or any discussion) other than stating how horrible you think Bush was?

If you would have watched 60 minutes you would have heard the same things I did.

[Bruce MacPherson]

I'm sorry we can't disagree in a more civil manner, as alluded to on the other thread, as I do enjoy these discussions. I expected a higher level of discussion than that. Let me try to respond without being insulting.

Yes, I do believe Mr. Bush acted hastily, when it was not necessary, and did NOT have a clear mission/goal/exit strategy. Honestly, how many different rationales for the invasion of Iraq do you recall? To help the Iraqi people? To stabilize the region? To prevent mushroom clouds over Manhatten? No nation building? Nation building to establish a democracy, then hand it back over? Even you have to admit we played musical chairs with justification for Iraq. I have mentioned twice here that I applauded Mr. Bush for his clear-stated goal in Afghanistan, and I along with most of the country supported those troop movements immediately, as did congress. But then what happened? We did NOT capture/kill bin laden, we temporarily disrupted the terror networks.....then we dropped the mission, diverted to Iraq, and let all our gains backslide into what we're facing now.

There are many, complex issues that need resolved, with a clear vision on what is to be accomplished before we commit ourselves to a MAJOR investment of our nations blood and treasure.

Again, I said I'm glad Mr. Obama is thinking this through with the help of military and elected advisors, rather than taking a cowboy, cavalier attitude. In that post, I did not even mention Mr. Bush. YOU are the one who drew the association, not me. Isn't that interesting? In fact, at the request of Hew and a few others, I think I've done a pretty bang-up job of not harping on Bush, nor even mentioning him, except to agree with his Afghanistan goals for the most part. And come on, given he was president just 9 months ago, there ARE some of his policies that still have relevance today?!

As for parroting left wing points, I'll have to take your word for that. Other than about half of Gen. McC's 60min segment, and a few episodes of M*A*S*H, I haven't watched much tv lately.

regards,
dave

Dave we could have a discussion about the reasons for going into Iraq but I won't change your mind and I don't believe you have the ability to change mine. As far as insulting me, that isn't going to happen. My point is this, you are making a statement about style, and your statement is not original in the least. The mistake you and those like you make is confusing indecision and weakness for a thoughtful assessment of the facts at hand. No doubt, none, in my mind what category this President falls into.

[ducknwork]

If you would have watched 60 minutes you would have heard the same things I did.

Next time I'll try that.

Then I can come on here and blame others and look in the past, calling names, rather than thinking towards the future. You'd fit in great in DC.
________
Permanent life insurance forum

[Pete]

lot of things have not been run properly over the past 8 years, but it has been politely pointed out, Bush ain't the prez anymore...and that is true. We must take our lumps, assess and move forward.

Nicely said Yardley. No matter how we look at Afghanistan; politically, historically, geographically, diplomatically......it will be a MONSTER compared to Iraq. And I'm not sure what we can realistically afford to accomplish, if anything at all. Mr. Bush's as well as Mr. Obama's stated goals for the area appeared reasonable, in disrupting terror networks, but obviously that charge will carry well outside the borders of Afghanistan, or the middle east for that matter. It is truly a global problem, with international solutions. The "go at it alone" or "with us or with the terrorists" attitude must be shelved next to the domino theories of SouthEast Asia.

In my opinion we have not fought a war since the 40's.
everything since then has been a policeing of the world.
When you fight a war you slaughter the puss out of anything that moves and you dont stop until the white flags wave and your enemy is kissing your boots.

Anything less is a big waste of money and american lives.
We have a problem of staying out of other peoples buisness. Ever notice that.



There is a reason we dont mess with Iran and its because their leaders still have balls.

Pete

[pat addis]

i am curious when obama will take any blame for anything

[Gerry Clinchy]

No matter how we look at Afghanistan; politically, historically, geographically, diplomatically......it will be a MONSTER compared to Iraq. And I'm not sure what we can realistically afford to accomplish, if anything at all. Mr. Bush's as well as Mr. Obama's stated goals for the area appeared reasonable, in disrupting terror networks, but obviously that charge will carry well outside the borders of Afghanistan, or the middle east for that matter. It is truly a global problem, with international solutions.

My sense was that (from O & the previous administration) that the A'stan situation was one we could NOT afford to NOT accomplish. It was an essential to keeping the U.S. safe.

we temporarily disrupted the terror networks.....then we dropped the mission, diverted to Iraq, and let all our gains backslide into what we're facing now.

Yup.

When we directed attention to A'stan, the AQ and T retreated to less "hot" spots.

When we got distracted from the goal, they slipped back into place in A'stan.

To me, this says that you can put the pressure on, but you will not succeed in a permanent way without making the additional changes that a comprehensive COIN approach would make. You could just repeat making short-term successes ad infinitum, until you just pull out in frustration ... as everyone else has done with A'stan over the course of history.

Using the selective terrorist/asassination strategy does not seem like an effective option unless you are also building a relationship at the grassroots with Joe Average.

You don't need an extensive "exit strategy", if you plan on winning When you win, the exit strategy is very simple, I think, compared to when you "lose".

Vice President Joe Biden and some other senior administration officials want to replace the counterinsurgency approach with a "counterterror" strategy that focuses more narrowly on using drones and small teams of Special Operations forces to kill senior al Qaeda and Taliban figures.

Mr. Gates remains opposed to such a strategy, according to Mr. Morrell, who said the defense chief "does not think that is a path to success in Afghanistan."

I read this as Mr. Gates disagrees with Biden. Did not see any clear reference that he disagrees with McC. In fact, it might appear that Gates would go along with increased troops if it was part of a sound COIN plan.

The defense chief had signaled recently that he is amenable to boosting troop levels, strengthening Gen. McChrystal's case for the additional forces.
It is far from clear what strategy additional forces will be asked to implement on the ground in Afghanistan. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters Wednesday that Mr. Gates was "undecided about what the appropriate tack should be going forward in Afghanistan."

"His thinking on this is evolving," Mr. Morrell said. "I don't think he has come to a final determination on what he believes to be the appropriate course going forward." He said in an interview that Mr. Gates has been a strong advocate of counterinsurgency but wanted to join the rest of Mr. Obama's war cabinet in discussing all possible options.

Mr. Obama focused his questioning on the current threat posed by al Qaeda and whether a resurgent Taliban would give al Qaeda leaders a new haven to regroup, the official said, which could indicate Mr. Obama is more concerned about the status of a threat to the U.S. than overall stability in Afghanistan.

This last element leaves me puzzled. With the experience history we have with AQ and T, the threat to U.S. remains as long as they remain functional. The only way to solve the threat issue is to use a program which permanently undermines the influence of AQ and T in A'stan. Today's "status of threat" could accelerate quickly if we do not act to contain the AQ and T for the long-term. Haven't we already learned that they were able to re-group after intially dispersing? Duh? Containing the threat of AQ and T, I sense, is inextricably connected to the stability of A'stan in the true long run, meaning a govt authority that most Afghans vies as legitimate and of manageable proportions of corruption. Hey, we in the U.S. don't like corruption either, but obviously we still have plenty of it!

[Hew]

Again, I said I'm glad Mr. Obama is thinking this through with the help of military and elected advisors, rather than taking a cowboy, cavalier attitude. In that post, I did not even mention Mr. Bush. YOU are the one who drew the association, not me. Isn't that interesting? LOL. Bart Simpson says it more precisely and with more conviction and believability when he says, "I didn't do it, man." In fact, at the request of Hew and a few others, I think I've done a pretty bang-up job of not harping on Bush, nor even mentioning him, except to agree with his Afghanistan goals for the most part. I don't recall ever requesting you to stop talking about Bush. I've only requested that your criticisms be, you know.... factual.

,,,,,,,,,,,

[dnf777]

I just thought it was funny. I mentioned "cowboy" and "cavalier", but made no mention of Bush, and a conservative wasted no time drawing the link!

[Richard Halstead]

The Wiehouse made a group decision or thr Prez seem to be waiting for that next pole to indicate the popularity effect changes on the left or the right effect on the decision for the number of boots on the ground needed to get him reelected. He using the same popularity method for votes a fellow trialer that ran for county comisioner, "Sit the fence with Spence".

[TXduckdog]

DNF....I was just going to ask you if you thought Bush was acting cavalierly or being a Cowboy when we entered Afghan? I did not think so.

I though there was a coherent strategy at that time....we had to win hearts and minds and then go after Al Queda. We basically rolled AQ all the way to Pakistan.
The mission was to get Bin Laden. Since then the role has expanded.

We damn near had Bin Laden.....another 60 Minutes program. But politicians didn't pull the trigger.

I fear this Admin will not be able to keep their hands out of the cookie jar, the way Obama likes to micro-manage.

Yes it is good they are studying the situation. But it needs to be a military to politician ration of about 4 to 1. NOT the other way around.